Criminal Trial – Communal clash – Right of private defence – Occurrence arose when group of deceased and others attacked appellant’s house following earlier quarrel – Deceased stabbed by appellant; co-accused sustained injuries from prosecution party – Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC, upheld by High Court – Supreme Court held: Even accepting prosecution version, circumstances showed reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt to accused – Fatal stab fell within right of private defence – Conviction unsustainable – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1-3, 7-15].

Right of Private Defence – Sections 100 & 102 IPC – Commencement and extent – Right begins when reasonable apprehension of danger arises and continues so long as danger persists – Where accused’s group was attacked with blunt objects outside their house at midnight, apprehension of grievous hurt was reasonable – Exercise of defence extending even to causing death justified [Paras 8-9, 14].

Plea of Defence – Non-mention under Section 313 CrPC – Not fatal – Absence of specific plea does not foreclose consideration if evidence (even prosecution evidence) shows existence of such circumstances – Court must assess from entire record whether accused reasonably apprehended danger – Failure to take plea cannot deny protection of law [Paras 10-12].

Exceeding Right of Private Defence – Argument rejected – Seriousness of injuries not sole test – Even if accused had minor injuries, broad probabilities showed mob aggression against them – Hence act of appellant not beyond scope of Section 100 IPC [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 15].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Discovery of a fact – Pulukuri Kottaya re-affirmed – Division Bench of Bombay High Court’s departure disapproved – “Fact discovered” not synonymous with “object recovered” – What is discovered is the fact that the object was concealed at a place to the accused’s knowledge – Recovery is merely a step to discovery – Ratio of Pulukuri Kottaya remains locus classicus and binding – High Court reminded of judicial discipline and Chagla, C.J.’s Full Bench dictum that Privy Council views bind unless the Supreme Court takes a different view [Paras 1-7, 15].

Section 27 – Application to facts – Accused A2’s statement “I have kept the firearm concealed behind the old house in a heap of wood” – Fact discovered was concealment by A2 at the indicated place – The same gun was shown used in the offence through other evidence – Admissibility sustained to the extent of discovery fact [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Liability – Section 34 vs. Section 149 IPC – Common intention – A2 alighted with co-assailants, jointly chased and fired – Conviction properly referable to Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 – High Court’s use of Section 149 corrected – Conviction and life sentence of A2 affirmed under Section 302/34 [Para 16].

Appeals against Acquittal – Interference standards – A4 and A6 only carried knives – did not strike or cause any injury even after deceased fell – No evidence of prior concert or knowledge of design – Trial Court’s acquittal was a reasonable view – High Court’s reversal impermissible – Acquittal restored [Para 17].

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence – Minor inconsistency about direction of fire not fatal – Possible reflex twirl of running victim can explain frontal firearm injuries – Eyewitnesses (including injured PW2) reliable – Convictions otherwise sustained against principal shooters already final [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal of A2 (Crl. A. No. 189/2000) dismissed – conviction altered to Section 302/34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed – Appeals of A4 & A6 (Crl. A. No. 194/2000) allowed – convictions set aside and acquittal restored – Bail bonds discharged – Registry of Bombay High Court to circulate this judgment alongside impugned judgment as directed [Paras 16, 18].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Power is exceptional and to be exercised sparingly – High Court erred in quashing charge-sheet by assessing sufficiency of evidence as if conducting a trial – At stage of cognizance/framing of charge, court not to weigh evidence but only see whether allegations prima facie disclose commission of offence – Held: Order of High Court quashing proceedings set aside [Paras 5-10].

Categories for Quashing – Principles Reiterated – R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Quashing justified only where: (i) allegations do not constitute any offence, (ii) complaint discloses only non-cognizable offence, (iii) allegations absurd or inherently improbable, (iv) legal bar to proceedings, or (v) proceedings manifestly mala fide – Caution reiterated that High Courts should not usurp trial court’s function of appreciating evidence [Paras 6-9].

Forgery and Cheating Allegations – Prima facie case disclosed – Allegations that accused fabricated fake bank guarantees using stolen letterheads and impersonated bank manager to defraud excise authorities – These facts disclose offences under IPC – Proper course is to proceed to trial – High Court’s finding of absence of “definite evidence” unsustainable at pre-trial stage [Paras 3-5, 10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing proceedings set aside – Criminal case against respondents to proceed – Clarification that Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, which are to be decided at trial [Para 10].

Murder – Conviction – Evidence – Medical evidence vs. ocular testimony – Where medical evidence runs counter to the eye-witness version, the prosecution case becomes doubtful – Ocular testimony of related/ interested witnesses requires strict scrutiny, particularly when corroboration from medical/ scientific evidence is absent – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9–14].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25, 26, 27 – Disclosure statements and recoveries – Court cautioned against police manipulation of records to bring statements within Section 27 – Recovery must be credible, voluntary, and independently corroborated – Recoveries in present case witnessed only by interested relatives; no independent witness joined – Held: Suspect and insufficient to base conviction [Paras 14–20].

Defence Evidence – Not to be lightly discarded – Defence witness testimony entitled to equal treatment as prosecution witnesses – Failure of prosecution to explain missing period of deceased raised doubt – Burden is always on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; defence need only create a doubt [Para 20].

Appeal – Scope of Supreme Court interference – Though ordinarily slow to disturb concurrent findings of guilt in murder cases, where findings are perverse, unreasonable, or against fundamental rules of procedure, intervention justified – High Court erred in ignoring contradictions between medical and ocular evidence [Para 13].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No. 79/1999 allowed – Convictions of Rai Sahab and co-accused set aside – Appellants directed to be released if not required in other proceedings – State’s appeal against acquittal of Ram Singh dismissed [Paras 21–22].

Maintainability of Suit – Article 131 of the Constitution – Jurisdiction not barred – Dispute concerned enforcement of agreements/notifications for construction of SYL Canal and not distribution or control of water itself – Held: Not a “water dispute” under Section 2(c) of Inter-State Water Disputes Act – Hence, Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article 131 not ousted by Article 262 and Section 11 of the Act [Paras 5-7].

Limitation – Article 112 of the Limitation Act – Suit by a State in Supreme Court – Bar of limitation not applicable – Further, cause of action continuous in nature – Held: Suit not barred by limitation – Issue decided in favour of plaintiff [Paras 8-10].

Construction of SYL Canal – Mandatory injunction sought – Punjab bound by 1976 Central Government notification under Section 78 of Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1981 Tripartite Agreement, and 1985 Punjab Accord – More than Rs. 700 crores spent and major portion of canal completed – Refusal by Punjab unreasonable, against national interest – Held: State of Punjab directed to complete remaining canal work within one year – Failing which, Union Government bound to step in and ensure completion through its agencies [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Federalism – Constitutional obligations of States – Cooperative federalism requires States to adhere to commitments made in agreements endorsed by Union – Change of political party in power cannot nullify binding obligations towards another State – Supreme Court can enforce such obligations under Article 131 to preserve federal balance and national interest [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Decision – Plaintiff State of Haryana entitled to relief – Suit decreed – Mandatory injunction issued against Punjab to complete SYL Canal within one year; in default, Union of India to complete construction – No order as to costs [Paras 19-20].

Education Law - Medical Education – One-Time Increase in MBBS/BDS Seats – No Mandate under Law – Extraordinary error in CET evaluation led to revised merit list displacing students already admitted – State sought one-time increase in admission capacity – Supreme Court upheld Central Government’s refusal on ground of non-compliance with Section 10A and Regulations – Held: One-time increase, even in exceptional cases, must meet statutory requirements – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1–10, 17].

Section 10A, Medical Council Act – Mandatory Compliance – Supreme Court reiterated that permission to increase intake requires submission of a scheme, compliance with infrastructure norms, and prior approval by Medical Council – Held: Even temporary or one-time seat enhancement must adhere to full procedure – No exemption based on urgency or hardship [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court Cannot Override Statutory Provisions – Petitioners sought High Court direction to Central Government for seat enhancement – Held: Courts cannot compel executive to act contrary to law – Compassion cannot justify judicial orders that violate statutory framework – High Court rightly declined relief [Paras 11–15].

Equity vs. Rule of Law – Sympathy Cannot Displace Statute – Despite sympathy for students displaced by revised merit list, Court held that judicial sympathy cannot override legal mandates – Held: Rule of law must prevail even in extraordinary circumstances – State's failure to follow due process cannot be cured by judicial intervention [Paras 12–15].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s judgment except for setting aside one inappropriate direction (F(3)) – No costs imposed [Para 17].

Service Law – Constitutional Validity Of Recruitment Rules - Interdepartmental Promotion – Presidential Order under Article 371D – Rules Held Invalid – The Tribunal struck down rules allowing employees of the Factories and Boilers Department to be promoted in the Labour Department – Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding such inter-cadre promotion violates Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order – Held: Rules made under Article 309 cannot override Presidential Order framed under Article 371D – Sadanandam and Satyanarayana Rao cases overruled [Paras 1–4, 13–14].

Interpretation – “Transfer” vs. “Promotion” – Distinct Concepts under Presidential Order – The Court rejected the argument that “transfer” in Paragraph 5(2) includes “promotion” – Held: Transfer involves lateral movement within cadre; promotion involves vertical movement and is distinct – Reading “promotion” into “transfer” would render the distinction in Para 5(1) meaningless and defeat the purpose of the Order [Paras 9–12].

Rule-making Power – Limits under Article 309 – Presidential Order Prevails – Though the Governor has rule-making power under Article 309, such power is subject to Article 371D(10) – Held: In case of conflict, Presidential Order prevails over rules made under Article 309 – Impugned Rules enabling promotion from Factories and Boilers to Labour Department struck down as unconstitutional [Paras 13–14].

Doctrine of Legislative Interpretation – No Reading into Statute – The Court emphasized that interpretation must adhere to the text – Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutes or read into them what is not expressed – Distinction between “transfer” and “promotion” must be respected unless explicitly stated otherwise [Para 12].

Administrative Suggestions – Avoiding Stagnation – Promotion Channel Within Departments – Although the Court dismissed the appeals, it recommended that the State consider permanent promotional avenues within the Factories and Boilers Department to avoid stagnation and discontent – Held: Administration must ensure equitable prospects within cadres while respecting constitutional mandates [Para 15].

Rape and Murder – Conviction Restored – Acquittal by High Court Set Aside – The respondent was convicted by the Sessions Court for raping and murdering a 3-year-old child but acquitted by the High Court – Supreme Court reversed the acquittal, holding the child witness testimonies reliable and corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence – Held: High Court erred in disbelieving credible eyewitnesses and ignoring crucial recoveries linked to the accused – Conviction restored; death sentence converted to life imprisonment [Paras 1-3, 18-23].

Child Witness – Testimony Found Reliable – Conviction Can Be Based – Two child witnesses (PWs 7 and 8) identified the accused carrying a blood-dripping bag near the canal where the body was later found – Their evidence withstood lengthy cross-examination – Held: Evidence of child witnesses not to be discarded merely due to age – If found consistent and uninfluenced, can form sole basis of conviction [Paras 11-15, 19].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Discovery from Accessible Place Valid – Recoveries made at the instance of the accused (grinding stone, bloodstained clothes, bag) were challenged on grounds of public accessibility – Held: As per Jeet Singh, what matters is visibility, not accessibility – Objects hidden in tall grass or buried and revealed through accused’s knowledge fall under valid recovery under Section 27 [Paras 21-22].

Corroborative Evidence – Bloodstains and Circumstances – All forensic material (pant, grinding stone, newspaper, quilt) linked to blood group "B" of deceased – Recovery of items at accused’s instance matched circumstantial details and reinforced child witness account – Held: Such circumstantial evidence strongly corroborates direct testimony and points unerringly to guilt [Para 20].

High Court’s Error – Ignored Trial Court’s Evaluation – The trial court had evaluated demeanor and reliability of child witnesses – High Court wrongly dismissed testimony based on speculative reasoning (e.g., lack of shirt recovery, improbability of child account) – Held: High Court’s interference unjustified; acquittal overturned [Paras 17-18].

Sentencing – Death Sentence Modified – Life Imprisonment Awarded – Though the case bordered on “rarest of rare,” Supreme Court refrained from imposing death penalty in view of prior acquittal by High Court – Held: Sentence under Section 302 IPC altered to life imprisonment – Other sentences to run concurrently [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Cruelty and Attempt to Murder – Sections 307, 323, 324, and 498A of the IPC - Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Recorded – The appellant, father of the victim Munki, challenged the acquittal of her husband for administering poison—Trial court ignored direct and medical evidence; High Court summarily dismissed revision—Supreme Court held survivor’s evidence reliable and corroborated by chemical report showing presence of organo-phosphorous insecticide—Held: Findings of trial and High Court unsustainable—Accused convicted under Sections 307, 324, and 498A IPC [Paras 1–14].

Victim’s Testimony – Clear, Unshaken and Reliable – Survivor Munki deposed about regular beatings and that her husband forcibly administered poison—Despite detailed cross-examination, her testimony remained consistent—Held: Her evidence trustworthy and credible—Trial court erred in ignoring direct testimony of survivor [Para 11].

Medical Evidence – Corroborates Allegation of Poisoning – Doctor confirmed presence of dangerous organo-phosphorous insecticide in gastric lavage and blood—Expert testified that if not treated, poison could have been fatal—Held: Chemical evidence corroborates oral evidence—Trial court’s reasoning in disregarding this evidence flawed [Paras 9–10].

Trial Court’s Reasoning – Misconceived and Speculative – Sessions Judge acquitted the accused citing non-examination of certain relatives and absence of the tumbler used—Supreme Court held these grounds speculative—Jeth, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law not expected to depose against accused—Held: Acquittal based on irrelevant omissions and unsound assumptions [Para 10].

High Court’s Dismissal – Perfunctory and Non-Speaking – Criminal revision petition was summarily dismissed without examining merits—Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s non-application of mind in exercising revisional jurisdiction [Para 13].

Decision – Conviction Recorded – Matter Remanded for Sentence – Accused held guilty under Sections 307, 324, and 498A IPC – Matter remanded to Second Additional District & Sessions Judge for hearing on sentence – Impugned judgments set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 14–15].